Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 224 posts

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#171

Post by Jensson »

nextaccountic wrote: post #168
Jensson wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't about privacy, this is about influence. CCP having direct chain of authority to control what Americans watch isn't a thing many want.

Are Facebook, Twitter and Google any better?

CCP doesn't control any of those, so they aren't national security issues.

Edit: And in non American countries where US influence is a national security issue they are already adding similar laws or putting in similar pressure to ensure USA can't influence their people as much.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#172

Post by Reki »

Clubber wrote: post #155
licebmi__at__ wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western powers still make deals with authoritarian/non-democratic states. At this point is naive to think that the grievances with china are because “they are not democratic”.

>At this point is naive to think that the grievances with china are because “they are not democratic”. No, the kid gloves are off because "they are not democratic." It's like being nice to the weird kid in school and the weird kid steals your lunch. No more being nice to the weird kid. Also, consider if they were democratic, we might not be having the grievances we are currently having.

So how do you explain our relashionship with countries like Saudi Arabia? Because forget the bully, thats like being friends with the school shooter.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#173

Post by Jensson »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #163
Jensson wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't about privacy, this is about influence. CCP having direct chain of authority to control what Americans watch isn't a thing many want.

To be clear, we haven't been asked about it. Besides the framing of the question ultimately begs the response. Q1: Is it ok for China to control what Americans watch? Q2: Should companies have free association? Q1 and Q2 determine the same decision, but express different values and ultimately different responses. You have to be honest that the framing begs a particular response. That's the part that's not unbiased.

Answer to Q2 is easy: no. Nobody thinks that companies should be allowed to pledge allegiance to whoever they wish, there are already lots of laws in every country against pledging allegiance to terrorists or being owned by terrorists etc.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#174

Post by Auracle »

Jensson wrote: post #171
nextaccountic wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are Facebook, Twitter and Google any better?

CCP doesn't control any of those, so they aren't national security issues. Edit: And in non American countries where US influence is a national security issue they are already adding similar laws or putting in similar pressure to ensure USA can't influence their people as much.

Let’s say Meta started really pushing stuff to encourage teens to not join the military. What then?

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#175

Post by Jensson »

Auracle wrote: post #174
Jensson wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CCP doesn't control any of those, so they aren't national security issues. Edit: And in non American countries where US influence is a national security issue they are already adding similar laws or putting in similar pressure to ensure USA can't influence their people as much.

Let’s say Meta started really pushing stuff to encourage teens to not join the military. What then?

Nothing? Meta is owned by an American, that person probably don't want to see America get destroyed. Other nation states however has an interest in seeing USA get destroyed, so that makes things very different.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#176

Post by Auracle »

elfbargpt wrote: post #47

I'm surprised this passed (in the house at least) at this point in the election cycle. My suspicion is that ByteDance will in fact refuse to divest, and TikTok will get banned. Which I don't think the electorate will like very much

Many people above the age of 35 hate TikTok almost entirely because young people like it, the same as (in the past) video games, rock and roll music, etc. Young people don’t vote at the rate older people do, and they won’t in this election in particular.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#177

Post by Clubber »

Reki wrote: post #172
Clubber wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At this point is naive to think that the grievances with china are because “they are not democratic”. No, the kid gloves are off because "they are not democratic." It's like being nice to the weird kid in school and the weird kid steals your lunch. No more being nice to the weird kid. Also, consider if they were democratic, we might not be having the grievances we are currently having.

So how do you explain our relashionship with countries like Saudi Arabia? Because forget the bully, thats like being friends with the school shooter.

What does that have to do with anything I said? Do you think we ally with countries for moral reasons? We allied with Stalin after he invaded Poland with Germany earlier in the same war.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#178

Post by IncreasePosts »

rchaud wrote: post #170
IncreasePosts wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it the DOJ or FTCs purview to 'look out for threats'?

It is if credible evidence of such a threat could be provided. The FTC investigated and fined Facebook $5bn for its breaches. The DOJ investigated and fined Binance $4bn and cut off its USD off-ramps, effectively banning it for US residents. Why should TikTok not be investigated similarly? What Congress is proposing is banning an app without first providing any evidence that the app conducts activities that are illeg…

It seems like the argument against TikTok is one of potential abuse, not that a specific illegal action had been taken by ByteDance.

So, for the same reason that you can't find someone guilty of a crime that you believe they will commit in the future, the DOJ and FTC don't really have any standing here to press charges or levy fines.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#179

Post by rightbyte »

rightbyte wrote: post #121
mindslight wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really mind that per se. What I do mind is the government letting domestic companies run roughshod over the population with surveillance/influence for the past few decades, and then when a significant enough foreign company finally does it, focusing on that foreign company while continuing to ignore the longstanding deeper problem. Rather than focusing on TikTok, how about a general solution of a US GDPR plus…

I for one miss this type of humour. It is dead. Mailing list humour is dead. Chain mail humour is dead. The book is a 200 page rant. Like, it is beutuful that someone can care so much.

Ops wrong post.

Re: US House passes bill to ban TikTok if owners won't divest

#180

Post by kelseyfrog »

Jensson wrote: post #173
kelseyfrog wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, we haven't been asked about it. Besides the framing of the question ultimately begs the response. Q1: Is it ok for China to control what Americans watch? Q2: Should companies have free association? Q1 and Q2 determine the same decision, but express different values and ultimately different responses. You have to be honest that the framing begs a particular response. That's the part that's not unbiased.

Answer to Q2 is easy: no. Nobody thinks that companies should be allowed to pledge allegiance to whoever they wish, there are already lots of laws in every country against pledging allegiance to terrorists or being owned by terrorists etc.

Again, a really good example that the framing of the concept begs a specific response. Keep 'em coming.

Association and allegiance aren't synonyms.

Post reply on HN